Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameCrush


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

GameCrush

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unremarkable website. All three references are dated March 23. Notability is not established. This seems more like promotion (albeit with links to "journalistic" sources) than encyclopaedic content. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. I'm familiar with the recent press coverage and much of it repeats the same phrases; I'm assuming GameCrush sent out a press release to most major gaming news outlets and many of them covered it for the lolz.  So (a) there appear to be concerns with the coverage being "significant" in the sense of non-trivial, (b) if the articles are largely reciting a press release there's concerns with their reliability, and (c) other than this brief burst of publicity the service seems likely to remain of low profile.  If I'm wrong and three months later there's a plethora of significant coverage then the article can be recreated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "Wikipedia Deletion Policy". I just wanted to point out none of the basic points in this policy fit to this article:
 * Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria --> N/A: No copyright violations in this.
 * Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish --> N/A: No redirects, gibberish, etc.
 * Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) --> No advertisement, in fact, it doesn't even state whether the site is .com, .net, etc.
 * Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate) --> N/A
 * Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) --> N/A: The sources provided are most certainly reliable.
 * Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed --> N/A: The reliable sources have been found.
 * Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) --> N/A: Meets guidelines.
 * Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons --> N/A: Nothing to do with a living person.
 * Redundant or otherwise useless templates --> N/A
 * Categories representing overcategorization --> N/A
 * Images that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy --> N/A: No image.
 * Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace. --> N/A
 * Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia --> N/A: This is very much "encyclopaedia suitable" content.Harrypmgaga (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - The relevant passage is "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)." The article fails WP:N as the sources are either not "significant coverage" in the sense of "non-trivial", or are not "independent of the subject" in the sense that they are reproducing press-releases with little or no independent investigation, verification, or commentary.  See also WP:SBST - "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability."  My apologies for not more directly referencing these policies earlier. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The first sentence of the section you quoted begins "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following:" I respectfully suggest that you read WP:Notability, specifically, section number 4, which should give you an idea of why this article was suggested for deletion. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * RE: Reply/Comment - Thanks for that, I can admit that I did not read the section 4, which "Simon-in-sagamihara" has read, but as for DustFormsWords comment where WP:N states "as the sources are either not "significant coverage" in the sense of "non-trivial", or are not "independent of the subject" in the sense that they are reproducing press-releases with little or no independent investigation, verification, or commentary."
 * I can in-fact tell you that after reading the press-release (which was e-mailed to me, as I do work in the video-games industry as a journalist) that the three news sources were not just "reproducing press-releases with little or no independant investigation, verification, or commentary". In the IGN source in particular, there was independant investigation where the writer himself had one of these "PlayDates", there was verification obviously having taken part in a PlayDate, and commentary which you can read for yourself.
 * Again, I can't say much for the WP:N Section 4, but I still believe that it should stay an article personally. -Harrypmgaga (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you're quite right, the IGN article is both significant and independent. I'd assumed the link went to another, shorter, article I'd seen previously.  I stand by delete per the WP:SBST issues but I withdraw my concerns about the sources.  Also Harrypmgaga, would it be okay if I format-edited your comments above to make the thread flow better?  - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I understand you have to abide by it, but thanks for taking a look at the IGN and that we could have this discussion. You also have my formal permission to format-edit my comments on the basis that no content itself will be changed. Thanks  -Harrypmgaga (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, I think. It looks better on my screen, at least - I just hope I haven't created a nightmare for IE users.  Pardon my OCD, it just bugs me seeing big chunks of unformatted text in AfD, even where (as here) they're a wholly relevant and useful contribution to the debate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, I agree, formatting helps heaps. Where does this debate go now? -Harrypmgaga (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The debate remains open for seven days to allow anyone interested to contribute. It might be that more good arguments for keep are made.  At the end of seven days the arguments on both sides will be weighed up by a Wikipedia admin, who will then make a decision to delete or keep the article and close this thread accordingly.  If you want, you can request (either now or later) to have the article moved to your userspace when it is deleted so that you can keep it as a starting point in case more evidence of notability surfaces later.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I'll request for that now (I assume I do it here), ahh the joys of game journalism... :P   -Harrypmgaga (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. Hopefully the closing admin will see and do that (if it's a delete result).  If that doesn't happen just politely ask on the closing admin's talkpage afterwards. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have added a number of references, and the additional sections "overload" and "reactions". The latter makes it clear that many of the stories aren't simply recycling the press release (which i also added as a primary source and for comparison), but arfe at least providing significant reactions. The IGN, Tom's Guide, and Escapist stories clearly report additional research not derived from the Press Release. In all i think there is clearly "substantial coverage" by independent, reliable sources. Each of the 12 independent sources now cited in the article is a story devoted entirely to the site. Yes they all seem to have been prompted by the announcement that the site was going live -- well all but the Tom's Guide story -- either directly or in many cases picked up from anothe online site. But most added independent reactions, several did independent research, and all thought the story noteworthy enough to write about. I could easily have added another dozen citations. This deals with DustFormsWords's concern that there was "little or no independent investigation, verification, or commentary." DES (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will add that if this does get deleted, which i think it shouldn't, I will be happy to provide anyone who asks with a copy by email, or to userfy or incubate the article for improvement and eventual reinstatement if anyone indicates a firm intention of working on it. DES (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of news coverage for this site.  D r e a m Focus  00:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - DESiegel has visited my talk page to ask me to review my "delete" position on the basis of new sources added to the article. The sources are excellent but my chief objection remains that they are all dated to within a very small period of time.  Per WP:SBST - "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Response as I said on your talk page, I can understand that objection. I disagree with it, but it is not irrational. Of course this would mean we could never cover a new development until well after it occurred, and we often do cover recently created things. In any case thank you for looking the situation over again. DES (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with DustFormsWords. This site is not currently notable per WP:WEB and WP:N. Wikipedia is not a news site (that's called WikiNews), and thus far this is nothing but a heavy repeating of a press release which, at best, belongs there. When it actually receives significant coverage beyond its announcing itself, then its notable. For now, its just a news blitz with a bunch of reporters doing what reporters do, putting out the press release slightly rewritten. Half of them even use variations of the same title even. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree You've failed to view the article (IGN one) which has changed DustFormsWords opinion on this (see above). This report by IGN has actually investigated it and taken a look at the service itself, with a journalistic view. It has "independent investigation, verification, or commentary" which fits this quite nicely.   -Harrypmgaga (talk)
 * DustFromWords has not changed his view from delete, and a single article actually being real journalism versus press release regurgitation does not make any difference. The event just happened, so your remark that reports are still coming in after the "explosion ended" is also wrong. It is is still just reporting on a single event. Again, it does not have actual significant coverage outside of normal news coverage. Half a year from now, will it have any news coverage, and other significant coverage? We don't know, but as of now, it is still just a news story that belongs on WikiNews and is not a notable topic for Wikipedia. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Response I didn't say he changed his choice from delete, but he has changed his reasons WHY. He was against the sources firstly, but after looking at the concrete, journalistic sources, changed his opinion against the sources to just the 'media burst'. Also, the "media explosion" has in fact ended, and the reports that are now being released are more concrete, with journalistic views and verification with integrity, etc.   -Harrypmgaga (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Response You incorrectly suggest that only a single article is anything more than "press release regurgitation" or "putting out the press release slightly rewritten". Specifically:
 * The Boston Phoenix article gave significant independent analysis, beyond "press release regurgitation".
 * So did the CNET Crave article, in addition to interviewing individual gamers for their reactions.
 * The CrunchGear article also presented independent analysis/reaction, indeed most to the story was composed of such reactions.
 * The Tom's Guide article included additional research into the nature of the profiles currently available on the site, as well as giving analysis and reactions beyond merely repeating the facts of the press release.
 * The Escapist also did independent research into the content of the site, and included independent analysis and reactions.
 * The XBoxIC article did independent research into and reportage on the related Microsoft policies, and provided independent analysis different from any other cited story based on that research.
 * The Video Game Reviews' article also offered independent analysis and reaction.
 * The Crush! Frag! Destroy! articel is composed almost entirely of reaction to and analysis of the facts from the press release.
 * You ask for "actual significant coverage outside of normal news coverage". But vitally all wikipedia cited sources that are news (as opposed to book or web) sources are part of "normal news coverage". Indeed if they were not, their reliability would be suspect. What policy, guideline, or even essay suggests that having sources "outside of normal news coverage" is required, or even desirable? It is true that since this site has been very recently created, all sources that cover it are also recent. The "short burst" passage in the guideline (not a policy) could be interpreted to bar them for this reason. But since we often have articles on recently released films and books, recently founded businesses, and the like -- provided that there is non-trivial coverage in reliable sources -- that is clearly not the consensus view of that passage. First of all, the concept applies most strongly to BLP articles, where the WP:BLP1E concept applies. But for other cases, it seems to me that this concept should be applied, if at all, rather differently. If, after time has passes, it appears that there was no continuing coverage, it might then be used to challenge notability in retrospect. In any case i for one disagree with your suggested application of it here. DES (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought I added this before but it looks like my edit didn't stick. What DustFromWords wrote at 00:25 GMT holds true for me too. I still don't see how notability has been established. I know "this article exists therefore we should have that article too!" is not valid, but I offer as an example, the kid in the UK that had a baby with his 14 year old girlfriend. That kid was all over the media for a few days, but didn't establish sufficient notability as to warrant his own article. I feel the same logic applies here. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree News reports are still coming in regarding this, after the media explosion ended.   -Harrypmgaga (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy More in favour of userfication. In agreement that it's within WP:SBST territory, cut out the parroting of press releases and mostly it's meagre offerings from the point-and-laugh school of 'journalism' in a short burst. No prejudice against recreation/reinstatement if coverage continues, however this is mirroring numerous other ventures which get a bang of publicity then disappear. Someoneanother 02:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Looking at a few of the sources, added, I agree with DESiegel that they go past the "press release" whatnot and are actual reviews of the site, hence meeting notability requirements. –MuZemike 03:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I just added some additional references and quotes. DES (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Collectonian that this website doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion for websites at present. That may change, going forward. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like a ton of significant coverage to me.  Powers T 12:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. At least for the time being, the thing is turning up in pop-culture references. I went to Wikipedia to find out what the heck "GameCrush" was. I would have been disappointed if I couldn't find it. John W. Kennedy (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I did the same, Penny Arcade is running a bit about it (of course), but I disagree that it is notable. This thing will be gone inside of a few months, and if it's not, there will certainly be more citable references to support the article at that time. This sort of thing doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. At least, not yet. --[TINC]-- 14:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC) --[TINC]-- 14:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I also saw the Penny Arcade comic and wondered what the heck it was referring to. My first reaction on seeing a "what the heck is that?" reference on the web, is to search wikipedia. Is this unreasonable? Why should we delete this? It seems more reasonable to me, to leave it in, and then delete it later if it proves to be a "flash in the pan" sort of thing. --Fritzophrenic (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.